“With educational and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. In that case, to seek reservation for the children is not proper."
The Supreme Court on Friday orally questioned the rationale of children of IAS and IPS officers seeking reservation benefits despite their families having progressed socially and educationally.
“If both parents are IAS officers, then why should they have reservation?” a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan asked during a hearing, as it expressed concern over quota benefits being availed by the creamy layer within the backward communities.
Justice Nagarathna said: “With educational and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. In that case, to seek reservation for the children is not proper. We will never get out of this. We should be concerned about these things.”
The bench made the observation while dealing with an appeal by Ragavendra Chandranavar, an OBC candidate, challenging the denial of appointment as assistant engineer (electrical) with the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited under the OBC quota.
The District Caste and Income Verification Committee denied him a caste validity certificate after concluding that he fell within the creamy layer. Consequently, the caste certificate that was issued to the petitioner certifying him as a member of the Kuruba community was revoked.
He was denied appointment because his parents were in the state government service and the couple’s total salary exceeded the income cap of ₹8 lakh fixed by the State Backward Classes Commission to exclude the creamy layer from the benefits of reservation. Karnataka High Court had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s plea, aggrieved by which he filed the present appeal.
The counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the annual salary drawn by the parents cannot be the sole criterion for determining whether a person belongs to the creamy layer.
He said it has to be examined whether a person’s parents are holding Group A, B, C or D posts. It was argued that merely because a person’s parents were working in government service as peons or clerks, they cannot be excluded from the benefits of reservation.
The Supreme Court issued a formal notice to the Karnataka government for its response to the appeal.
"They are both IAS officers, both are in government service. They are very well-placed. Social mobility is there. Now there are government orders excluding all these people and they are questioning the exclusion. This also has to be kept in mind," Justice Nagarathna said.
The court said: "With educational and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. So, then again, seeking reservation for the children, we will never get out of it. That is a matter we have to concern also".
Appearing in the matter, advocate Shashank Ratnoo said the persons concerned were not excluded because of their salary but because of their status and sought for deeper examination and said there had to be a distinction between the Economically Weaker Sections category and the creamy layer.
In response, Justice Nagarathna said that in EWS there is no social backwardness, but only economic backwardness.
Ratnoo then argued that the criteria for the creamy layer had to be much more liberal than for EWS, and said that if both were treated alike, there would be no difference between them.
Justice Nagarathna further said there had to be some balance. She said that while a person may be socially and educationally backward, the position changes once the parents have attained a certain level after taking advantage of the reservation.
The court issued notice in the plea after hearing these submissions and sought responses from the concerned parties.
The Supreme Court is examining petitions seeking reservation benefits for the creamy layer among backward classes, reviving the question whether economic status can override caste-based social disadvantage.
In the landmark 1992 Supreme Court judgment in the Indra Sawhney judgment, also known as the Mandal case, the court upheld a 27 per cent reservation for OBCs but ruled that the “creamy layer” among them must be excluded from quotas.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment